Tax Officers’ Statement Triggers Legal Questions Over Authority

A press statement issued by the Inland Revenue Service Officers Association (IRSOA) in support of a senior tax officer has sparked legal and constitutional questions, with lawyers seeking proof that the statement was officially approved by the association.

The controversy began after a Supreme Court lawyer asked IRSOA to provide a certified copy of the press release issued on January 17, 2026, along with documents showing who approved it. The request includes meeting minutes, names of officers involved, and evidence that the statement was passed through a formal vote.

Legal experts say the demand is important because service associations are required to follow their own rules and cannot issue public statements on sensitive legal matters without proper authorization.

Constitutional lawyer Azhar Siddique said government officers’ associations cannot act like political groups or interfere in court matters. He warned that commenting on cases already before courts, especially those linked to the Lawyers Welfare and Protection Act, 2023, could influence legal proceedings.

He said any statement issued in the name of an association must be properly approved and documented. Otherwise, it should be treated as a personal opinion, not an official position.

The matter has also been brought to the attention of senior officials at the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), with calls to protect institutional credibility and ensure official platforms are not misused.

Meanwhile, IRSOA said it issued the statement after a lawyer sought registration of an FIR against a serving Commissioner Inland Revenue over alleged threatening language. The association said a writ petition was filed against the FIR request and the Lahore High Court has granted a stay in the case.

IRSOA said it supports the officer, describing him as a professional official performing his duties under the law. It also said it respects the judicial process and supports fair and lawful investigations.

Observers say the issue could set an important example for how government officers’ associations handle legal disputes and public statements, especially when cases are under court review.